Banned: "Do your own Research"

originally posted by: chr0naut
PS: Watching videos is not research. Reading stories is not research.

Ok, to your mind what constitutes research?

I posted on facebook a paper directly from Ontario Health saying that there are higher than normal cases of periodcarditis and myocarditis in young people, mostly male. My take is that until we know why it is affecting young men disproportionately, they should not receive it being at low risk for covid anyhow. Not only did I get a facebook fact check on my covid "misinformation" but lots of people I knew flipped out at me for sharing this because they didn't even read it.

So, what are people to do if they find some proper research that is cautionary?
How do we share it so the info will be taken seriously?

Both sides may have blown it a bit out of proportion but if the media only supports one side that becomes an echo chamber.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: American-philosopher

This article talks about covid 19 misinformation.

You mean the same Covid misinformation that gets posted here thread after thread that's then shown to be false time after time ?
I'm sure those OP's are researched.

People tend not research when it comes to Covid they just look for validation of their existing belief , research is done by those who debunk their BS.

No it isn’t done by anyone except CnN. Weren’t you paying attention?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

I did some of my own COVID-19 vaccine research.

I had both shots of the Pfizer vaccine.

I had no adverse reactions. Just a little soreness at the injection site for a few hours. Same experience for my wife.

I then checked with a magnetic compass, and there was no magnetic effect that I could see.

So, the next check was to see if I turned into a zombie when going near a 5G cell tower. This proved problematic because I live in New Zealand. Where there is 5G coverage, but not much (I checked on a coverage map). So, I went right into the city of Auckland which has some coverage. Sadly to say, not even the slightest zombification was noted.

So, by scientific process, I eliminated a substantial number of posts, by a small number of posters here on ATS, as being obviously untrue.

a reply to: chr0naut
So less information can somehow be a good thing?

a reply to: American-philosopher

I personally don't care what CNN thinks, they are fake news and they are the misinformation, plus i don't listen to what I they tell me to do because I don't watch CNN or any news outlet. They are just encouraging people to be stupid and not look into things, well I feel we can do this if we want to or not. I am not stupid and I don't like social media telling me how to think and what to do.

a reply to: American-philosopher

Oh and btw I felt that the lady on CNN was talking down to people, i really just want to smack her, how do people watch this this garbage and think it's good information? No wonder we have idiots out there.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: kwakakev
But as there is a growing economic incentive for the medical community to make people sick and keep them on life long treatments instead of curing disease, things are going wacky.

The government is threatening doctors to toe the line, is it?

Enough people claiming to be doctors, are all over social media to suggest that they can speak out without censure.

Also, how could the government know what is said in a private consult between patient and doctor?

The whole 'giant conspiracy' thing is irrational.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: American-philosopher

You mean the same Covid misinformation that gets posted here thread after thread that's then shown to be false time after time ?

I'd agree I have biases but I've read most of those threads and haven't found many of those proofs to be very convincing at showing it to be false either. When a government is corrupt are we to believe them when they say they are honest? When a pharma company says their product is safe yet it's still experimental should we really believe them? What if we can't believe them? How would you feel in this situation? How will you feel if you find out you were lied to?

For those who can see through the lies it's going to take more than a proof approved by the liars themselves.

The certificatory authorities tell us that the vaccine is approved now. So, no longer experimental.

But some prefer to believe that what they read online somewhere, from an unverified, and probably anonymous, source.

At the time when these anonymous and uncertified pundits wrote their uninformed opinions, the vaccines were in the late stages of phase 3 trial, and already past the 'experimental' phase, as far as most would define the word.

Yet, some people will always call the vaccines 'experimental' forever, with no real, or reasonable criteria, as to when that period will ever be over

Yeah, someone is lying, and people are not being rational about who the liar is.

originally posted by: Kingnothing33
a reply to: chr0naut
So less information can somehow be a good thing?

No, more truthful information is good. But the barrage of online BS opinions do not equal truthful information.

There are a limited number of government agencies promoting their messages. There are an almost unlimited number of opinionated people who post their BS, and agree with each other, on social media (which includes free and unmoderated video postings).

I mean, 1 billion flies can't be wrong - eat $#it.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: chr0naut
PS: Watching videos is not research. Reading stories is not research.

Ok, to your mind what constitutes research?

I posted on facebook a paper directly from Ontario Health saying that there are higher than normal cases of periodcarditis and myocarditis in young people, mostly male. My take is that until we know why it is affecting young men disproportionately, they should not receive it being at low risk for covid anyhow. Not only did I get a facebook fact check on my covid "misinformation" but lots of people I knew flipped out at me for sharing this because they didn't even read it.

So, what are people to do if they find some proper research that is cautionary?
How do we share it so the info will be taken seriously?

Both sides may have blown it a bit out of proportion but if the media only supports one side that becomes an echo chamber.

Since the issues with clotting and pericarditis have been admitted 'officially' but the low numbers and the fact that it may not have been the vaccine as the cause means that your 'information was redundant at best.

What your FaceBook post was recommending was that people in specific age groups don't vaccinate (which affects more than that age group, because they can infect others). This will cause more deaths from COVID-19, related to the case mortality ratio of 1.72% (Canada's current ratio). An estimate based upon the current number who have died of COVID-19 in Canada would be somewhere in the vicinity of 13,000 deaths.

Contrast this against the actual number of myocardia/pericardia events (37.4 per million) gives the vaccine a dose/adverse effect ratio of 0.00374 %. These are also not fatalities, but are cardiac events and may not even be caused by the vaccines.

The posting of the Ontario Health report was not the misinformation.

The conclusion that the report indicated that a significant population not be vaccinated was. There is nothing in the report that indicated that - no such recommendation, not even support for the notion.

It was your conclusion that was the misinformation. It clearly would have led to thousands of times more deaths.

And who gave you the authority to speak on behalf of public health issues that you clearly have not fully comprehended, and broadcast your misinformation to others similarly ill-informed? This is actually life and death stuff.

The article is not about 'banning' researching. What it's about is telling people to research properly and not just disappear down a rabbit hole of confirmation bias.

Generally speaking, anyone who tells you to 'do your research' just wants you to agree with them and doesn't actually want you to do anything of the kind.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Here is the thing with that the article wants u to agree with MSM and "Their idea of research"

originally posted by: American-philosopher

Oh, so we are just to stupid.

Generally speaking, yes.

I've seen time and again people coming on this forum and others who simply don't understand basic things, like the difference between a virus and a bacteria, or simple statistical analysis. I've lost track of the number of times that I've heard people taking one data and believing that it meant the exact opposite of what it really did because they didn't know how to interpret it.

People not knowing what mRNA is, or what is can and cannot do is just the tip of the iceberg.

What, seriously, can you do with somebody who watches a video of people apparently sticking non-magnetic objects to their body, who then screams that the shot is magnetizing people. Or somebody who doesn't understand grade school math like percentages or ratios?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The article is not about 'banning' researching. What it's about is telling people to research properly and not just disappear down a rabbit hole of confirmation bias.

Generally speaking, anyone who tells you to 'do your research' just wants you to agree with them and doesn't actually want you to do anything of the kind.

The problem that we are facing right now is that not all information should be treated equally, there is A) An abundance of material out there that is fake, misrepresented, or just plain incorrect, and B) Far too many people who can't tell the difference between good material and the above.

People are going out and doing "research" and rathe than coming back better informed they come back with a head full of crazy conspiracies and bad information that leads them to make bad decisions.